Hello All, I heard a nasty rumor this evening at a local climbing gym that after the recent injury at the quarry, "the city" is "shutting the quarry down", and that a land-owner had recently showed up to tell people it was private property and they had the leave. Is this (or anything remotely similar) true?

(Apparently I need to specifically ask for replies only from either quarry locals, or those with direct knowledge of this particular incident)

Hello All, I heard a nasty rumor this evening at a local climbing gym that after the recent injury at the quarry, "the city" is "shutting the quarry down", and that a land-owner had recently showed up to tell people it was private property and they had the leave. Is this (or anything remotely similar) true?

(Apparently I need to specifically ask for replies only from either quarry locals, or those with direct knowledge of this particular incident)

I highly doubt it, but I'd talk to Louie Anderson as he is the go to source of info for the quarry. his username on here is socalbolter so just send him a PM.

Hello, I of course do not debate the right of the property owner to control their property. However, I was under the impression that the owner did not mind climbers - since not only do we not litter, but we also periodically clean up the property and help the police catch people who do illegally dump there. I thought that we had developed a good relationship with the owner?

So, my question is this: has there been any recent, dramatic, decisive change in this situation? and, have other parties become involved, such as the city? Perhaps because of the recent injury and helicopter evac made issues more high-profile?

This issue has been at a slow simmer for a long time. It's been debated on this site before. Like it or not, the owners have a right to their property.

It's not quite that straightforward. California law provides for recreational access to private property under certain conditions. It would be up to a judge to decide, as I understand it. Here, for example, hikers prevailed over property owners for access to the El Prieto trail.

That link to the legal case is interesting reading; however it's not clear whether the same precedents apply to the Riverside quarry. You will notice that they divide the history into several eras, the most important being pre- 1972. In that case the court found that the trail had a historic and overt "implied public dedication." In addition, it was shown that the land was used "for a period of time in excess of five years preceding March 4, 1972, for public recreation purposes." Can that be shown for the quarry? If not, I would not put any eggs in a legal basket. Instead, the likely best path is through relationships with the land owner, the county planners and supervisors, and options such as the Access Fund land conservation campaign.